Alternatives to the UFO Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

The UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) hasn’t found favor with all and sundry so what’s left and are alternatives to the UFO ETH credible? That of course is assuming that when skeptics seemingly say “it [the UFO ETH] can’t be, therefore it isn’t”, can they actually come up with alternatives to the UFO ETH? What follows is based around a debate I had with a UFO ETH skeptic on those alternatives.

In the beginning, UFOs [born as ‘flying discs’ or flying saucers’] were secret military vehicles, probably Russian based on Nazi prototypes. When that explanation bit the dust, well of course it was all misidentifications of common terrestrial events or hoaxes. When a considerable percentage of UFO events failed that misidentification test, the UFO ETH [ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis] came to the fore. The UFO ETH hasn’t found favor with all and sundry so what’s left and are alternatives to the UFO ETH credible? That of course is assuming that when one seemingly says “it [the UFO ETH] can’t be, therefore it isn’t”, can they actually come up with alternatives to the UFO ETH? What follows is based around a debate I had with a UFO ETH skeptic on those alternatives.

Regarding Alternatives to the UFO Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

From the get-go, I’ll point out that I am very well aware that the "U" in UFO stands for "unidentified". It can also stand for "unidentifiable" since a hardcore UFO is a UFO that remains a UFO even after those with the ways and means and abilities to try to turn a UFO into an IFO have failed to do so. There are an awful lot of hardcore UFO case histories that nobody can explain without having to resorting to considering something that's artificial and something that's under intelligent control. The ETH obviously fits the bill. But...

Might there be an alternative to the extraterrestrial hypothesis? Well you could speculate that they come from a parallel universe or another dimension or some such. That's still extraterrestrial in my book. That leaves the possibility of terrestrial and therefore human time travelers from our future. I mean it's possible. Who's to say otherwise? Except, if human tourists from our future can time travel back to our era and before then you'd expect an awful lot of UFO reports to centre around highly significant historical events like the JFK assassination or the sinking of RMS Titanic or D-Day or the first use of the atomic bomb, or Custer's last stand, or perhaps lots would have appeared over Yankee Stadium when Roger Maris hit his 61st home-run. About the closest you get is the 'Star' of Bethlehem event at the birth of Christ - and even that is only related in one chapter of the New Testament. So the time travel hypothesis is a failure.

One very solid argument for the UFO ETH is that over nearly seven decades now the extraterrestrial hypothesis hasn't been able to be debunked. No one can come up with a viable alternative hypothesis. The ETH is alive and well. Why? There must be something going on that's suggestive in the extreme that the ETH is the best (and probably only) hypothesis to deal with those hardcore UFO sightings. There has to be an explanation for them and all other scenarios have been eliminated. Readers might recall the famous Sherlock Holmes quote: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." If the hardcore UFO residue isn't alien, what's an alternative hypothesis?

One standard answer is that skeptics refuse to give any alternative explanations for the hardcore UFO unknowns on the grounds that they need more data. Still, it’s been seven ongoing decades already. How much more data do skeptics need? - Yet another seven decades worth? Pity they won’t take a punt. Skeptics should let their words of wisdom ring out loud and clear. Can skeptics just solve the UFO issue for us once and for all so we (the Royal We) can just move along on to other newer and better and more productive things?

As an alternative to the alternative explanations, I’ll make things easy for the UFO ETH skeptics. Their mission, if they so choose to accept it (Ha-Ha!) is to go to the published University of Colorado “Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects” – the Condon investigation and report. Go to the index and look up “sightings, unexplained”. Pick just one – their choice. Explain it in prosaic terms. Do what the University of Colorado scientists failed to do.

Now let’s see if I got this right. UFO ETH skeptics admit that there are hardcore bona-fide UFO unknowns. They admit that there has to be a logical explanation(s) for the hardcore. They admit that the ETH (ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis) is a logical explanation or at least a plausible or possible explanation even if the supporting data isn't up to their more exacting standards.

Skeptics admit that they cannot come up with a viable alternative explanation(s) for the same reason – the data doesn't come up to their requirements. Well, how about skeptics just speculate about an alternative – dive off into the deep end of the ‘what if’ pool. How would they explain the hardcore unknowns if they were making a Hollywood epic with this mystery as the central core plot element or if they were writing the greatest science fiction novel ever written? So come on skeptics, let fly with your non-ETH scenario based on your imagination, like maybe the hardcore unknowns come from Atlantis or maybe they are another example or case history of how God works in mysterious ways, or maybe they are just holograms or space critters. The idea that organisms (space critters) lived in outer space but on occasion dipped into Earth’s atmosphere – seen as UFOs – was really considered a plausible explanation in the early days of the ‘flying saucer’, albeit not for very long. Or maybe – wait for it – it’s all just a software/computer simulation! So tell us skeptics one and all, what is your most likely non-ETH guess? You’re not held accountable for just speculating and guessing in case you’re worried about posterity.

My skeptical UFO debating partner in crime liked to equate extraterrestrial aliens in ‘flying saucers’ with an alternative of fairies, leprechauns, demons or miracles in terms of believable reality and therefore in terms of being taken seriously. I’m sure all of these suggestions were meant to be tongue-in-cheek but he never admitted as much to that, so maybe he was serious, or delirious!

IMHO, it’s all too easy to just sit on one’s duff and be negative like invoking comparisons with fairies and leprechauns which would be highly insulting to the many UFO witnesses who have been traumatized by their experiences and those serious UFO investigators both public and private. So, how about UFO skeptics making a positive contribution as in coming to terms with what UFOs are, or at least might be, and obviously they have to be something, even if its an alternative to the UFO ETH.

My best guess is that those who won’t provide an alternative explanation(s) or even speculate upon on make a wild guess about an alternative explanation(s) against the UFO ETH is that because even in their wildest imaginations they can’t even conceive of an alternative scenario to the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

One reply to the above has been “why bother”? Why should anyone try to bother putting forth alternatives to the UFO ETH? Perhaps IMHO because it might be interesting to some of the readers here for skeptics to actually give out with something positive (it might be this) for a change instead of just being negative (it isn't this). Perhaps coming up with an alternative just might exercise those skeptical little grey cells. But then real people with The Right Stuff don’t say “Why Bother?”

I have never read a serious UFO book, or viewed a serious UFO documentary that even mentioned; far less gave any credibility to fairies, leprechauns, demons, miracles or even terrorists as having anything to do with the UFO phenomena. I have never read any government document, whether issued for the public, or declassified, that suggested fairies, leprechauns, demons, miracles or terrorists have or has any connection with UFOs. There are several books written on the Biblical connection with UFOs, but miracles and demons are not mentioned in that context. New Age hippies might embrace fairies, leprechauns and the 'space brothers' but as entities separate and apart. The absolute closest I've ever seen remotely to my referred to above debating opponent suggested hypothesis was that in the early days of the 'flying disk' or 'flying saucer' era the powers-that-be worried that Soviet or Communist agents might unleash on the U.S. intelligence agencies a wave of false sighting reports in order to tie up the communication channels preventing U.S. intelligence agencies from detecting a more sinister plot. Such fears turned out to be groundless, but those were the 'Reds-under-the-bed' days.

Even if fairies, leprechauns, demons, miracles or terrorists were a credible and alternative hypothesis to the UFO ETH, there is no reason to believe, as my debating opponent does, that the ETH would have even less credibility. No, the UFO and the ETH fit together like hand-and-glove. All relevant UFO publications and documents, public (government) and private, even the skeptical ones, acknowledge the ETH. They don't acknowledge fairies, leprechauns, demons, miracles or terrorists.

Clearly here skeptics along the line of my debating skeptic are exhibiting something close to utter desperation in coming up with such frothing at the mouth. If this is the best they can do, any and all pro UFO ETH advocates have nothing to fear from such analysis. If they are to have the slightest credibility, produce citations by credible, sane and rational individuals that have suggested UFOs can best be explained by resorting to fairies, leprechauns, demons, miracles and/or terrorists and that these explanations have a greater probability of being correct than the ETH. Of course it can’t be done.

In fact I had a brief check of such UFO ETH alternatives - fairies, leprechauns, demons, miracles and terrorism - in four UFO encyclopedias (Clark; Sachs; Spencer; & Story) as well as in all of the major tomes by the skeptics - Donald Menzel; Edward Condon (University of Colorado Report); Philip Klass; Jim Schnabel; Lawrence Tacker; & Robert Sheaffer. There are no entries in the former for fairies, leprechauns, demons, miracles and terrorism; nothing in the index of any of the tomes for the same. Further, even skeptics like James Randi; Martin Gardner; & Carl Sagan never used UFO and fairies and/or leprechauns and/or demons and/or miracles and/or terrorism in the same sentence.

And if skeptics care to check out Biblical texts, they'll find that strange clouds, whirlwinds, pillars of fire, flying rolls, the 'star' of Bethlehem, the 'wheel' of Ezekiel and Elijah's chariot of fire are not associated with miracles or demons. Neither word in used in conjunction with these events.

Now if my debating partner or any other skeptic wants to formally propose and put forward any one (or more) of the four, even five, as a viable alternative as a solution to the hardcore UFO unknowns, then they'll have to flesh it out in quite some considerable detail. It's something I suspect they are very unlikely to do or accomplish.

In conclusion, are fairies, demons, miracles, leprechauns, terrorists, etc. viable likely, possible, probable or proven alternatives to the UFO ETH? Or, to rephrase the question, based on seven decades of data, which of the following ideas in your opinion best explains the hardcore UFO unknowns, and which of the following ideas in your opinion least explains the hardcore UFO unknowns and why. Here's the list of options: Demons, the ETH, fairies, leprechauns, miracles, the simulation hypothesis, and terrorists. If you wish you can throw into the mix god or deities, angels, holograms, Atlantis, entities from the Hollow Earth, Nazi secret weapons ready to precipitate the beginnings of the Fourth Reich and/or space critters. So readers, what's your best guess for most likely and your best guess for least likely? I've already walked-the-walk on this. It’s your turn.